X2D Bracketing and HDR

[boojum]

I am spoiled with a Sony A7 which will not only bracket images abut also weave them together into one composite image.  Very nice.  And while the X2D will bracket images there seems to be no facility for weaving them into the one composite image.  So if anyone does bracketing how do they weave them together?  If at all.  Thanks.

[man-overboard]

https://askubuntu.com/questions/226054/how-do-i-join-two-images-together

You may find some answers here for Linux.

[MGrayson]

Lightroom and Photoshop will do this with close to one click. Not a problem. Stacking or panorama. Focus stack or HDR. All easy.

[SrMi]

The in-camera "weaving" produces a JPEG file. I believe that only very few X camera owners are interested in JPEGs.
I use Helicon for focus bracketing, and Adobe's Photo Merge operation for other multi-image operations.

[man-overboard]

Helicon yes, I could not remember the name! Thank you.

[boojum]

I am a petty hack and quite amazed and content with JPG files from the X2D.  I take both 3FR and JPG at 16 bit but rarely use the 3FR RAW file.  And @man-overboard thanks for the link to Linux stuff.  I see I can do it in GIMP.  And I have installed Pinta just now.  Yes, strange buying the camera and XCD 55mm V lens and then not getting Lightroom or Photoshop but who says I have to be rational? 

@man-overboard and if you are working as a monkey in the chair do not fall off.  The meme reminds me of the old Florian Camathias who drove BMW's mightily back in the day.  The TT is bad enough solo but when it is a dance it gets really hairy.

[SrMi]

Far be it from me to tell people to shoot in raw or JPEG formats, but remember that JPEG files are 8-bit, lossy compressed files.

[boojum]

What you say is true.  But those X2D JPG's are spectacular.  I will check to see if Phocus can make them JPG's with greater bit depth.  The problem with the 3FR is I cannot post it as a RAW file.  There is a local fellow who does fine printing whom I could have print a good image, though.  If I get a good image. 

The X2D with the XCD 55mm V is a great combo.  I just did a simple test shot that way alongside one with my sweet old '57 KMZ Jupiter 8.  The Jupiter 8, this one, is a very good copy with great color and detail.  It is not up to the XCD 55mm V.  I am spoiled for life.  The Cooke Amotal, which I really like a lot, vignettes some on the X2D.  I have to do some comparison shots between that and the 55.  I hope to be able to find a way to correct the Coke vignetting.  For me, nothing I have comes close to the X2D.

[tenmangu81]

What you say is true.  But those X2D JPG's are spectacular.  I will check to see if Phocus can make them JPG's with greater bit depth.  The problem with the 3FR is I cannot post it as a RAW file.  There is a local fellow who does fine printing whom I could have print a good image, though.  If I get a good image. 

JPEG's are always 8-bits, by "definition". You can't go beyond. The only thing that can be done is to output within Adobe RGD rather than sRGB. But if you are just interested in posting, sRGB will be enough and more appropriate.

[boojum]

What you say is true.  But those X2D JPG's are spectacular.  I will check to see if Phocus can make them JPG's with greater bit depth.  The problem with the 3FR is I cannot post it as a RAW file.  There is a local fellow who does fine printing whom I could have print a good image, though.  If I get a good image. 

JPEG's are always 8-bits, by "definition". You can't go beyond. The only thing that can be done is to output within Adobe RGD rather than sRGB. But if you are just interested in posting, sRGB will be enough and more appropriate.

Understand that I am quite beyond my depth here as an old LibArts major ("Do you want fries with that?")  A quick scan through Wikipedia indicates that PNG is lossless and has greater bit depth.  But, Flickr does not allow PNG files.  I suppose I could set up a website if I ever get enough good images.  I'll ponder that.  Thanks for the gentle prod.

[SrMi]

Understand that I am quite beyond my depth here as an old LibArts major ("Do you want fries with that?")  A quick scan through Wikipedia indicates that PNG is lossless and has greater bit depth.  But, Flickr does not allow PNG files.  I suppose I could set up a website if I ever get enough good images.  I'll ponder that.  Thanks for the gentle prod.

JPEGs are a suitable format for final output (print, Flickr). It is only when post-processing the images that JPEGs are less adequate.

[MGrayson]

To adapt the old joke, the advantage of RAW is its flexibility. The disadvantage of RAW is its flexibility.

JPEG has the advantage of "done". Once you have one, there's not a lot you can do with it without making it look unnatural or break apart into artifacts. Starting from a RAW file gives one the freedom to alter the look of the photo in a (practically) infinite number of ways. That then puts the burden on the photographer - What do you WANT to do to the image? Do you want to match the impression of the scene when you took the image? Do you want to express something different using the capture as a starting point? Do you want to experiment to see if something new will jump out at you?

You are implicitly answering all of those questions every time you process a RAW file. The camera's choice of conversion parameters to make its JPEG may differ, sometimes radically, from Capture One or Adobe Lightroom's defaults, so even going with "default processing" means a choice.

I personally feel (strongly) that the captured image is the score, and the post-processing is the performance. (And, I guess, that printing is the recording and sound editing). But learning to perform a piece is a lot of work. And post-processing a RAW can take anywhere from seconds to hours to days for a single image.

[boojum]

When I was recording music I also rebelled against post edits arguing the sound "as it was recorded" should remain pristine.  Over time I wound up with a really good sound editor (Magix Sequoia) and good plugins to modify ever so slightly the sound.  Groups who were marginal to marginal+ began to sound better in great software created venues with some subtle coloring.  I suspect that I will follow the same path for eyes that I followed for ears.  But not without some obligatory whining.  I am entitled to that.  ;o)

[SrMi]

The difference is that JPEGs do not represent the original image but are the camera computer's interpretation of the original image. It is as if a computer would play a song instead of a human.
Nonetheless, sometimes cameras can do a better job than humans.

[MGrayson]

Processing the RAW, whether in camera or out, is more akin to the musical performance than the editing.

I'm not dismissing the quality of the in-camera jpeg. Some cameras do a really good job - especially in the last 5 years. Even phones are getting great color out of terrible lighting. But the JPEG image is just one choice.

The biggest change I make is going to B&W, which I do more than half the time. I certainly don't want a single guess as to how to set the color response. I like making blues darker and green/yellows lighter. And these all need to be balanced against overall brightness, contrast, shadows etc. Of course a B&W won't look just like the scene - except on some winter days - so I'm not aiming for that.